Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:28:53.744Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biotic influences on species duration: interactions between traits in marine molluscs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2016

James S. Crampton ,
Roger A. Cooper ,
Alan G. Beu ,
Michael Foote  and
Bruce A. Marshall
James S. Crampton
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 5040. E-mail: [email protected]
Roger A. Cooper
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 5040. E-mail: [email protected]
Alan G. Beu
Affiliation:
GNS Science, Post Office Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand 5040. E-mail: [email protected]
Michael Foote
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 5734 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637. E-mail: [email protected]
Bruce A. Marshall
Affiliation:
Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Post Office Box 467, Wellington, New Zealand. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We analyze relationships among a range of ecological and biological traits—geographic range size, body size, life mode, larval type, and feeding type—in order to identify those traits that are associated significantly with species duration in New Zealand Cenozoic marine molluscs, during a time of background extinction. Using log-linear modeling, we find that bivalves have only a small number of simple, two-way associations between the studied traits and duration. In contrast, gastropods display more complex interactions involving three-way associations between traits, a pattern that suggests greater macroecological complexity of gastropods. This is not an artifact caused by the larger number of gastropods than bivalves in our data set. We used stratified randomized resampling of families to test for associations between traits that might result from shared inheritance rather than ecological trait interactions; we found no evidence of phylogenetic effects in any associations examined. The relationships revealed by our study should serve to constrain the range of possible biological mechanisms that underlie these relationships. As previously observed, two-way associations are present between large geographic range and increased duration, and between large geographic range and large body size, in both bivalves and gastropods. In gastropods, planktotrophic larval type is associated with large range size through a three-way interaction that also involves duration; there is no direct association of larval type and geographic range. Gastropods also display two-way associations between duration and life mode, and duration and feeding type. We note that in gastropods, an infaunal life mode is associated with large range size, whereas in bivalves infaunality is associated with reduced range size.

Type
Articles
Information
Paleobiology , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , Spring 2010 , pp. 204 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © The Paleontological Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Agresti, A. 2007. An introduction to categorical data analysis, 2d ed. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
Beu, A. G., Maxwell, P. A., and Brazier, R. C. 1990. Cenozoic Mollusca of New Zealand. New Zealand Geological Survey Paleontological Bulletin 58:1–518.Google Scholar
Blackburn, T. M. 1999. The relationship between animal abundance and body-size: a review of the mechanisms. Advances in Ecological Research 28:181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, T. M., Cassey, P., and Gaston, K. J. 2006. Variations on a theme; sources of heterogeneity in the form of the interspecific relationship between abundance and distribution. Journal of Animal Ecology 75:1426–1439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. H., and Maurer, B. A. 1986. Body-size, ecological dominance and Cope's rule. Nature 324:248–250.Google Scholar
Budd, A. F., and Johnson, K. G. 1991. Size-related evolutionary patterns among species and subgenera in the Strombina group (Gastropoda: Columbellidae). Journal of Paleontology 65:417–434.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., and Bambach, R. K. 2004. Did alpha diversity increase during the Phanerozoic? Lifting the veils of taphonomic latitudinal, and environmental biases. Journal of Geology 112:625–642.Google Scholar
Bush, A. M., Bambach, R. K., and Daley, G. M. 2007. Changes in theoretical ecospace utilization in marine fossil assemblages between the mid-Paleozoic and late Cenozoic. Paleobiology 33:76–97.Google Scholar
Buzas, M. A., and Culver, S. J. 2001. On the relationship between species distribution-abundance-occurrence and species duration. Historical Biology 15:151–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, R. A. 2004. The New Zealand geological timescale. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Monograph 22.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. A., Maxwell, P. A., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Jones, C. M., and Marshall, B. A. 2006. Completeness of the fossil record: estimating losses due to small body-size. Geology 34:241–244.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Jones, C. M., Marshall, B., and Maxwell, P. A. 2003. Estimating the rock volume bias in paleobiodiversity studies. Science 301:358–360.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Maxwell, P. A., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Marshall, B., and Jones, C. M. 2006a. The ark was full! Constant to declining shallow marine biodiversity on an isolated midlatitude continent. Paleobiology 32:509–532.Google Scholar
Crampton, J. S., Foote, M., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A., Matcham, I., Jones, C. M., Maxwell, P. A., and Marshall, B. A. 2006b. Second-order sequence stratigraphic controls on the quality of the fossil record at an active margin; New Zealand Eocene to Recent shelf molluscs. Palaios 21:86–105.Google Scholar
Curran-Everett, D. 2000. Multiple comparisons: philosophies and illustrations. American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology 279:R1–R8.Google Scholar
Felsenstein, J. 1985. Phylogenies and the comparative method. American Naturalist 125:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fienberg, S. E. 1970. The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables. Ecology 51:419–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foote, M. 1997. Estimating taxonomic durations and preservation probability. Paleobiology 23:278–300.Google Scholar
Foote, M. 2005. Pulsed origination and extinction in the marine realm. Paleobiology 31:6–20.Google Scholar
Foote, M., and Raup, D. M. 1996. Fossil preservation and the stratigraphic ranges of taxa. Paleobiology 22:121–140.Google Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Marshall, B. A., Cooper, R. A., Maxwell, P. A., and Matcham, I. 2007. Rise and fall of species occupancy in Cenozoic fossil molluscs. Science 318:1131–1134.Google Scholar
Foote, M., Crampton, J. S., Beu, A. G., Cooper, R. A. 2008. On the bidirectional relationship between geographic range and taxonomic duration. Paleobiology 34:421–433.Google Scholar
Frost, M. T., Attrill, M. J., Rowden, A. A., and Foggo, A. 2004. Abundance—occupancy relationships in macrofauna on exposed sandy beaches: patterns and mechanisms. Ecography 27:643–649.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. 2003. The structure and dynamics of geographic ranges. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., and Blackburn, T. M. 1999. A critique for macroecology. Oikos 84:353–368.Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J., and Blackburn, T. M. 2000. Pattern and process in macroecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.Google Scholar
Goodman, L. A. 1971. The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for building models for multiple classification. Technometrics 13:33–61.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1975. Evolutionary size increase and longevity in Jurassic bivalves and ammonites. Nature 258:493–496.Google Scholar
Hallam, A. 1978. Larval dispersal and species longevity in lower Tertiary gastropods. Science 199:885–887.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. A. 1980. Influence of larval dispersal and geographic distribution on species longevity in neogastropods. Paleobiology 6:193–207.Google Scholar
Harnik, P. G., 2007. Multiple factors in extinction risk: testing models of extinction selectivity in Eocene bivalves using path analysis. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Program 39(6):369.Google Scholar
Harnik, P. G., 2009. Testing the generality of macroevolutionary theory in the early Cenozoic. Ninth North American Paleontological Convention, Abstracts. Cincinnati Museum Center Scientific Contributions 3:361.Google Scholar
Hildrew, A. G., Raffaelli, D. G., and Edmonds-Brown, R. 2007. Body-size: the structure and function of aquatic ecosystems. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Hornibrook, N. d. B. 1992. New Zealand Cenozoic marine paleoclimates: a review based on the distribution of some shallow water and terrestrial biota. Pp. 83–106 in Tsuchi, R. and Ingle, J. C. Jr., eds. Pacific Neogene: environment, evolution, and events. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
Hunt, G., Roy, K., and Jablonski, D. 2005. Species-level heritability reaffirmed: a comment on “On the heritability of geographic range sizes.” American Naturalist 166:129–135.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1982. Evolutionary rates and modes in Late Cretaceous gastropods: the role of larval ecology. Proceedings of the Third North American Paleontology Convention 1:257–262.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1986. Larval ecology and macroevolution of marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Sciences 39:565–587.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1987. Heritability at the species level: analysis of geographic ranges of Cretaceous mollusks. Science 238:360–363.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1988. Estimates of species duration—reply. Science 240:969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonski, D. 1996. Body-size and macroevolution. Pp. 256–289 in Jablonski, D., Erwin, D. H., and Lipps, J. H., eds. Evolutionary paleobiology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2007. Scale and hierarchy in macroevolution. Paleobiology 50:87–109.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D. 2008. Species selection: theory and data. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:501–524.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Hunt, G. 2006. Larval ecology, geographic range, and species survivorship in Cretaceous molluscs: organismic versus species-level explanations. American Naturalist 168:556–564.Google Scholar
Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 1990. From regional to total geographic range: testing the relationship in Recent bivalves. Paleobiology 16:126–142.Google Scholar
Key, H. M., Kelley, P. H., Dietl, G. P., and Hansen, T. A. 2001. Muricid vs. naticid gastropod predation on Cretaceous to Recent Coastal Plain mollusc assemblages; drilling cycles of different periodicities. In NAPC 2001: paleontology in the new millennium (North American Paleontological Convention 2001), Program and abstracts. PaleoBios 21(Suppl. to No. 2):78.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. 2005. Shell composition has no net impact on large-scale evolutionary patterns in molluscs. Science 307:914–917.Google Scholar
Kidwell, S. M., and Bosence, D. W. J. 1991. Taphonomy and time-averaging of marine shelly faunas. Pp. 115–209 in Allison, P. A. and Briggs, D. E. G., eds. Taphonomy: releasing the data locked in the fossil record. Plenum, New York.Google Scholar
King, P. R. 2000. Tectonic reconstructions of New Zealand: 40 Ma to the present. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 43:611–638.Google Scholar
King, P. R., Naish, T. R., Browne, G. H., Field, B. D., and Edbrooke, S. W. 1999. Cretaceous to Recent sedimentary patterns in New Zealand. Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences Folio Series 1:1–35.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1980. Bivalve species duration, areal extent and population size in a Cretaceous sea. Paleobiology 6:184–192.Google Scholar
Koch, C. F. 1987. Prediction of sample size effects on the measured temporal and geographic distribution patterns of species. Paleobiology 13:100–107.Google Scholar
Kosnik, M. A., Jablonski, D., Lockwood, R., and Novack-Gottshall, P. M. 2006. Quantifying molluscan body-size in evolutionary and ecological analyses: maximizing the return on data-collection efforts. Palaios 21:588–597.Google Scholar
Liow, L. H. 2007. Lineages with long durations are old and morphologically average: an analysis using multiple datasets. Evolution 61:885–901.Google Scholar
Madin, J. S., Alroy, J. S., Aberhan, M., Fürsich, F. T., Kiessling, W., Kosnik, M. A., and Wagner, P. J. 2006. Statistical independence of escalatory trends in Phanerozoic marine invertebrates. Science 312:897–900.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1990. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges. Paleobiology 16:1–10.Google Scholar
Marshall, C. R. 1997. Confidence intervals on stratigraphic ranges with nonrandom distributions of fossil horizons. Paleobiology 23:165–173.Google Scholar
McGill, B. J., Enquist, B. J., Weiher, E., and Westoby, M. 2006. Rebuilding community ecology from functional traits. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21:178–185.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1990. Trends in body-size evolution. Pp. 75–120 in McNamara, K. J., ed. Evolutionary trends. Belhaven, London.Google Scholar
McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:495–516.Google Scholar
Miller, A. I. 1997. A new look at age and area: the geographic and environmental expansion of genera during the Ordovician Radiation. Paleobiology 23:410–419.Google Scholar
Morris, N., and Taylor, J. 2000. Global events and biotic interactions as controls on the evolution of gastropods. Pp. 149–163 in Culver, S. J. and Rawson, P. F., eds. Biotic response to global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Paulay, G. 1990. Effects of Late Cenozoic sea-level fluctuations on the bivalve faunas of oceanic islands. Paleobiology 16:415–434.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2007. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna (http://www.R-project.org).Google Scholar
Raine, J. I. 1992. “FRED,” fossil record electronic database using BASIS, Part 1. Description of the BASIS database and use of BASIS data retrieval system. New Zealand Geological Survey Report PAL 159:73 p.Google Scholar
Rex, M. A. R., Etter, A. J., Clain, A. J., and Hill, M. S. 1999. Bathymetric patterns of body-size in deep-sea gastropods. Evolution 53:1298–1301.Google ScholarPubMed
Rohlf, F. J. 2006. A comment on phylogenetic correction. Evolution 60:1509–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenzweig, M. L. 1995. Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2001. Climate change, species range limits and body-size in marine bivalves. Ecology Letters 4:366–370.Google Scholar
Roy, K., Jablonski, D., and Valentine, J. W. 2002. Body-size and invasion success in marine bivalves. Ecology Letters 5:163–167.Google Scholar
Russell, M. P., and Lindberg, D. R. 1988. Estimates of species durations. Science 240:969.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S. 1971. Larval dispersal as a means of genetic exchange between geographically separated populations of shallow water benthic marine gastropods. Biological Bulletin, Woods Hole Laboratory 140:284–322.Google Scholar
Scheltema, R. S. 1977. Dispersal of marine invertebrate organisms: paleobiogeographic and biostratigraphic implications. Pp 73–108 in Kauffman, E. G. and Hazel, J. E., eds. Concepts and methods of biostratigraphy. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pa. Google Scholar
Smith, J. T., and Roy, K. 2007. Selectivity during background extinction: Plio-Pleistocene scallops in California. Paleobiology 32:408–416.Google Scholar
Snee, R. D. 1974. Graphical display of two-way contingency tables. American Statistician 28:9–12.Google Scholar
Spencer, H. G., Marshall, B. A, Maxwell, P. A., Grant-Mackie, J. A., Stilwell, J. D., Willan, R. C., Campbell, H. J., Crampton, J. S., Henderson, R. A., Bradshaw, M. A., Waterhouse, J. B. and Pojeta, J. Jr. 2009. Phylum Mollusca: chitons, clams, tusk shells, snails, squids, and kin. Pp. 161–254 in Gordon, D., ed. The New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1973. Effects of competition on rates of evolution, with special reference to bivalve molluscs. Systematic Zoology 22:486–506.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1977. Trends, rates and patterns of evolution in the Bivalvia. Pp. 209–250 in Hallam, A., ed. Patterns of evolution, as illustrated by the fossil record. Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1982. Species selection involving alternative character states: an approach to macroevolutionary analysis. Third North American Paleontological Convention Proceedings 2:505–510.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1986. Population size, extinction, and speciation: the fission effect in Neogene Bivalvia. Paleobiology 12:89–110.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 1990. The general correlation between rate of speciation and rate of extinction: fortuitous causal linkages. Pp. 103–127 in Ross, R. M. and Allmon, W. D., eds. Causes of evolution: a paleontological perspective. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Stanley, S. M. 2008. Predation defeats competition on the seafloor. Paleobiology 34:1–21.Google Scholar
Thorson, G. 1950. Reproductive and larval ecology of marine bottom invertebrates. Biological Reviews 25:1–5.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1977. The Mesozoic marine revolution: evidence from snails, predators, and grazers. Paleobiology 3:245–58.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1978. Biogeography and adaptation: patterns of marine life. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Vermeij, G. J. 1987. Evolution and escalation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Google Scholar
Webb, T. J., and Gaston, K. J. 2003. On the heritability of geographic range size. American Naturalist 161:553–566.Google Scholar
Webb, T. J., and Gaston, K. J. 2005. Heritability of geographic range sizes revisited: a reply to Hunt et al. American Naturalist 161:533–566.Google Scholar
Wright, D. H. 1991. Correlations between incidence and abundance are expected by chance. Journal of Biogeography 18:463–466.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1972. Significance testing of the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Statistical Association 67:578–580.Google Scholar